Hi Steve --
[Ham, previously]: > Immorality is what conflicts with accepted > moral principles or social custom. [Steve]: > This is your definition of morality, Ham. If you've read Lila then > you know that the MOQ involves a different use of the term than > you are applying to my claim that faith is immoral. > Obviously atheism is immoral in the traditional usage of the term. > But to say so is irrelevant. > > Have you considered accepting the MOQ premise that experience > is Quality for the sake of argument and seeing where that leads you? > This is a discussion group on the MOQ after all. I have not only considered it, I believe it. Only, I state it in different terms (as you should know), which suggests an ontology that the MOQ overlooks: Value sensibility BECOMES experience when it is interpreted by the cognizant subject. Is that concept incompatible with the MOQ? [Ham, previously]: >The MOQ takes the elitist position that only its belief system > is reasonable, and thus capable of defining morality. [Steve]: > I don't think that has been said by Pirsig or anyone else > in support of the MOQ. You said (to Platt): > In MOQ terms reason is just a synonym for intellectual quality. > > In evaluating whether faith is a good or bad thing we don't need > to define what intellectual quality is or prove the "validity of reason." > We only need to say that it is bad to believe things that are of low > intellectual quality which in MOQ terms is obvious. I take this assertion (by a supporter of the MOQ) to mean that whatever the MOQ defines as "intellectual quality" is reasonable, and that anything else is either less reasonable or "bad faith" (to use Sartre's term). In other words, the MOQ sets the criteria for what is "good" and "bad" to believe in. Why is it not an elitist position to make MOQ the authority on what one should believe? [Ham, previously]: > Faith in the MOQ includes the belief that the universe is > a moral system, which means that only man can be immoral > because he alone has free will. [Steve]: > This free will business has nothing to do with the MOQ. That's unfortunate, because "this free will business" has everything to do with man's role in the universe. By avoiding it Pirsig has failed to give us an entelechy or purpose for human existence. Quality or Value is meaningless without a cognizant agent to appreciate it. [Steve]: > I'm not talking about expressing values. I'm talking about > claiming that Jesus is God sent by God to save mankind, > that Jesus was born of a virgin, that you will go to hell if > you don't believe the above. That's the mythology of Christendom, the Greco-Roman symbolism that made the teachings of an enlightened rabbi consistent with messianic prophecy. Surely you are not limiting faith to the mystical aspects of biblical prophecy. Belief in God goes beyond canonic scripture. What we call faith encompasses belief in evolution, logic, morality, and empirical truth. [Steve]: > I think it is reasonable to say that claiming that certain > statements must be accepted and affirmed as true "on faith" > as in without reason or evidence or even with evidence to > the contrary is immoral in MOQ terms. It is akin to saying > you know something that you don't know, in other words, > a lie. Worse, faith includes the idea that this sort of lieing is > commendable. Like saying that it is bad to believe things that are of low intellectual quality which in MOQ terms is obvious? Regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
